It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
"i am the destroyer of worlds......oh wait, im not anymore"

we all know the nuclear apocolypse will happen at some point in humanitys future,
it is narrow minded to think this re-assessment will change that




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
This scares me.. expect a war with Iran soon.. with Israel taking the lead. What this announcement is really about is the US doing some Pre-Israel nuclear strike on Iran posturing(conventional with nuclear waste being strewn in the air or mini-nukes). Pretty smart if you ask me... Our response after-->" well we are taking the lead in reducing nuclear arms"



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Evidently...

BHO isn't familiar with the concept of deterrence. The thought that a WMD strike on the US could result in nothing more than a UN resolution sickens me. The threat of unmitigated wrath and fury being unleashed keeps the animal states in line... Not the surrender in advance strategy...


Not using nukes = surrender? Really?

So I guess we surrendered to the Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Manuel Noriega...

And your strawman is ridiculously weak - that a WMD attack on the US would just result in a UN resolution. Fark, even Michael Moore would retaliate with massive force. Just not nukes.

"The threat of unmitigated wrath and fury being unleashed keeps the animal states in line?" It didn't prevent all the hijackings and innumerable terrorist attacks against Americans all over the world for the past 50 years or so.

We have plenty of weapons in our arsenal. We're just not planning to use our most heinous ones unless provoked with their use against us.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms(to public knowledge)


If anyone believes the U.S. has any sort of moral complication to nuking another nation you are delusional. If we don't have a reason we'll just as gladly make one. What is most likely to occur is an attack with an immediate coverup.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by UncivilCivilian
 


Sure because you could name for me and exact point in time where the US has "made up" a reason to use a nuclear devise?? As far as I know we only dropped two in wartime and it has never EVER happened again. So as we can use the law of averages to produce a number there wasn't a nuclear bomb drop for 4.5 billion years on Earth and since there has only been an incidence of this happening once, the law of averages would tell us the next probable time would be 4.5 billion years away. If you really think the US is so trigger happy why haven't we nuked the middle east yet? Better yet why didn't we nuke Russia, when we may have had this "reason" you speak of? Why not nuke during desert storm? Why not nuke during Vietnam? Well thats enough I think I proved your point.... POINTLESS.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by NoJoker13]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Mind
You seem to not understand that it invites others to nuke us because they now know that we won't launch nukes back.


From the source:

...except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.


By definition, a nucleur attack would come from a nucleur state



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
[edit on 6-4-2010 by amkia]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with following this policy. There is EVERYTHING wrong with announcing any piece military protocol to those we would deem our enemies.

So, yes, I agree with those who say this has a flavor of treason in it.

I only see one thing to gain by making such a statement. "Yay. Barry, your awesome! Way to go! Woo Hoo!". He could have adopted such a policy shift and kept it to himself.

What's the point of doing something if you can't get patted on the back right?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
DOD definition of treason :Violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal of one's country.
Can some of you please elaborate on how President Obama has committed treason by his latest announcement?

Nagasaki: about 75,000 (UCLA) people killed I'm sure that MOST of these individuals were not military.
Hiroshima: about 150,000 (UCLA) mostly civilians killed in this strike.

After WWII the US did a study and calculated it would take 10 Megatons (400 Hiroshima-size bombs) to destroy the US. Can someone elaborate on exactly why we need thousands of nuclear bombs in the first place? A nuclear strike isn't feasible now in this day and age. Too many civilian casualties. A "tactical strike" that has the possibility to send us into nuclear winter doesn't sound too fun either. Sure we got away with it in WW2, but if we destroyed that many civilians now, we would be in a world war scenario nowadays with our only ally being the justice league. Other countries aren't as scared of us as they used to be. Nukes are a dime a dozen now, and we are silly to think that someone like Pakistan, Iran, or Israel haven't been shopping for a buyer- er, I mean "terrorist organization that can infiltrate and steal nuclear material" Good job on this one President Obama.

Let's just face it, some of you are just going to hate the man no matter what he does...



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mirthful Me
 


Yea, we should just always retaliate and just invade and attack and kill innocents. Wait, we did that, and it is working out SO WELL.

Seriously, time to stop acting like cowboys and act like grownups, and stop hitting people just because we don't like what they do.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
And some of you will praise him and deify him no matter what he does.

I'm of the group who just can't wait til a non Dem/Rep gets elected as POTUS. Not a BHO hater or lover.

This could be interpreted like we're stating to the world that "you are largely off the hook now, but you'd better back us up if/when we hit a certain couple targets. If we are hitting them, be aware that we are not hitting you and don't you dare hit us in retaliation."
Maybe not; but could be taken that way.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by freetree64
 


OR>>>

you know the saying, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. And wait to see which one approaches the sandbox first.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrAlwaiz
DOD definition of treason :Violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal of one's country.
Can some of you please elaborate on how President Obama has committed treason by his latest announcement?


I'd be a liar if I said I thought any country was not willing to use biological weapons simply because prior to this announcement the US might possibly nuke them in response.

However, in a military chess match, the more you have up your sleeve, the better your position. The only reward for announcing this was for Obama to stroke his own ego.

Hell, I'd be very happy if we (the US) destroyed every nuclear weapon we own. On the other hand, I'd be very disappointed if we told anybody that we did that. No one needed to know about this. The statement has now revealed a potential weakness in our defensive stance.

We are now of the following policy; Okay World, here's your opportunity, if you can arrange and carry out a nation and military crippling biological attack, we're yours for the taking. Is that treasonous? Maybe not.

Hypothetically, let's just say that tomorrow, in wake of this news a biological attack happens that takes out 110-million Americans. Was it then a treasonous statement?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by kinda kurious


......But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.....

.....I suppose this document is a living and breathing entity that can simply be altered to suit Obama's crisis de jour. OK General X out N.Korea and insert Venezuela.....Life doesn't work that way nor does reality.....


So you think it should be a rigid, boiler plate, one-size-fits-all approach? That is LIMITING. Hmmmmm. Life doesn't work THAT way.

Each situation is fluid and unique. Each risk or pre/post strike assessment requires a measured, targeted (no pun) response.

Unless you want to just use (your idol) GWB's approach to randomly attack sovereign nations un-provoked.

Thanks for the Avie prop. I'm striving to cut through the BS like this.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
of course he does..in slovakia during the georgian crisis at the ranch for the olympic western riders...arcese friends....the mainn owner was the son of one of the big guys for the kremlin and he had a secret russian room..l.stalin in a cowboy hat... here you can follow there frends clinton anderson and andrea fappani teh whole western natural horse movement that the cia took over before 9-11!!!

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by UncivilCivilian
 


Sure because you could name for me and exact point in time where the US has "made up" a reason to use a nuclear devise?? As far as I know we only dropped two in wartime and it has never EVER happened again. So as we can use the law of averages to produce a number there wasn't a nuclear bomb drop for 4.5 billion years on Earth and since there has only been an incidence of this happening once, the law of averages would tell us the next probable time would be 4.5 billion years away. If you really think the US is so trigger happy why haven't we nuked the middle east yet? Better yet why didn't we nuke Russia, when we may have had this "reason" you speak of? Why not nuke during desert storm? Why not nuke during Vietnam? Well thats enough I think I proved your point.... POINTLESS.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by NoJoker13]


Man hasn't had nukes for 4.5 billon years (neither has there been man for that long)...



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zeuseadam
 


Um, please clarify. I don't undersand a single, solitary word of this.

And the caps button is on the left...

Thankyou mods... now if only I had my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by Legion2112]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Legion2112]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BuffaloJoe

Originally posted by MrAlwaiz
DOD definition of treason :Violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal of one's country.
Can some of you please elaborate on how President Obama has committed treason by his latest announcement?


I'd be a liar if I said I thought any country was not willing to use biological weapons simply because prior to this announcement the US might possibly nuke them in response.

However, in a military chess match, the more you have up your sleeve, the better your position. The only reward for announcing this was for Obama to stroke his own ego.

Hell, I'd be very happy if we (the US) destroyed every nuclear weapon we own. On the other hand, I'd be very disappointed if we told anybody that we did that. No one needed to know about this. The statement has now revealed a potential weakness in our defensive stance.

We are now of the following policy; Okay World, here's your opportunity, if you can arrange and carry out a nation and military crippling biological attack, we're yours for the taking. Is that treasonous? Maybe not.

Hypothetically, let's just say that tomorrow, in wake of this news a biological attack happens that takes out 110-million Americans. Was it then a treasonous statement?

I see your point, but I see no military advantage to keeping secret the fact that you're not going to be using a certain WMD. Maybe 50-100 years ago geopolitics was more about who had the biggest stick but these days it's a bit more subtle. I can see advantages to trying to put yourself across as the benevolent superpower and lets face it, claiming to not use certain WMDs isn't going to make the US any less safe, no matter the more hysterical poster may think. This world is feeling awful crowded of late so a more measured approach has to be a step in the right direction. Hypothetically we could ponder whether it would be treacherous for Obama to not take enough precautions to prevent the tooth fairy stealing all the nukes because that is about as likely as a chemical/biological weapon being successfully launched and deployed by a sovereign state at the US and taking out 110 million Americans.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by john_bmth]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
How about the all important question of a nonnuclear group of aliens attacking?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join